Iles, M 2019, 'How can frameworks inform water quality objectives for the closure of the Ranger mine?', in AB Fourie & M Tibbett (eds), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Mine Closure
, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 437-446, https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_rep/1915_36_Iles
Planning for the closure of Energy Resources of Australia Ltd’s (ERA) Ranger uranium mine requires an understanding of potentialimpacts to water quality in adjacent receiving waters. Potential mine impacts need to be evaluated in the context of the Commonwealth environmental requirements, which include possible incorporation of the site into Kakadu National Park; onsite (i.e. within the Ranger Project Area) impacts that are as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA); and protection of the people, ecosystem, and World Heritage and Ramsar wetland values of the surrounds. Adopting best practicable technology (BPT) is also required.
Water quality guideline values have been developed to support the management goal of achieving no change to biodiversity outside the Ranger Project Area. Guideline values to support the management goal of ensuring impacts onsite are ALARA, while still protecting the offsite values, have not been obtained. An agreed framework is needed to understand the changes that might occur at different concentrations of contaminants in the Ranger Project Area so that stakeholders can consider and assess whether such changes are ALARA and protective of the downstream values. The national water quality guidelines provide a framework for assessing remediation programs, while, under the environmental requirements, the closure of Ranger must be assessed using a BPT framework. Consideration of alternative management options, community, and environmental and cost aspects are common to both frameworks.
Additionally, ERA is working with consultants (BMT) and stakeholders to develop a risk-based vulnerability assessment framework to identify ecological and cultural endpoints for the environmental requirements, considering impact components such as duration, geographic extent and resilience, to determine how different concentrations of magnesium—potentially the most restrictive contaminant of concern—might affect these endpoints.
This paper describes an initial review of how these frameworks may be used to appraise the mine closure strategy’s compliance with the environmental requirements. The review can inform discussions with stakeholders on a suitable approach for setting water quality objectives for closure.
Keywords: water quality objectives, guidelines, ALARA, BPT, vulnerability assessment, mine closure
ANZG 2018, Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality, Water Quality Australia, viewed 2 February 2019, www.waterquality.gov.au/anz-guidelines
Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council & Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand2000, Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality, Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council & Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, Canberra.
Bartolo, RE, Harford, AJ, Humphrey, CL, George, AK & van Dam, RA 2018, ‘Defining the importance of ecological processes for monitoring aquatic habitats for conservation and rehabilitation objectives at the Ranger uranium mine, Kakadu Region, Australia’, Marine and Freshwater Research, vol. 69, pp. 1026–1046.
Bartolo, R, Paulka S, van Dam, R, Iles, S & Harford, A 2013, Rehabilitation and Closure Ecological Risk Assessment for Ranger Uranium Mine: Documentation of Initial Problem Formulation Activities, Internal Report 624, October, Supervising Scientist, Darwin.
BMT 2018, Ranger Mine Closure Water Quality Framework Project: Phase 3 Preliminary (Working) Draft Report, BMT, Brisbane.
BMT WBM 2017, Ranger Mine Closure Water Quality Framework Project: Phase 2 Report, Reference: R.B22552.002.01. December BMT WBM, Brisbane.
Commonwealth of Australia 1999, Environmental Requirements of the Commonwealth of Australia for the Operation of Ranger Uranium Mine, viewed 2 February 2019,
Energy Resources of Australia Ltd 2018, Ranger Mine Closure Plan, Energy Resources of Australia Ltd, Darwin.
Garde, M 2015, Closure Criteria Development—Cultural, ERA Ranger Integrated Tailings, Water & Closure, confidential report, Darwin.
Johnston, A & Iles, M 2013, Integrated, Tailings, Water and Closure Prefeasibility Study: Analysis of Best Practicable Technology, Energy Resources Australia Ltd, Darwin.
Oudiz, A, Croft, J, Fleishman, AJ, Lochard, J, Lombard, J & Webb, G 1986, What is ALARA?, Report CEPN No. 100, viewed 2 February,
Pollino, CA 2014, Ranger Rehabilitation and Closure Risk Assessment: Risk Screening, CSIRO Land and Water Flagship, Canberra.
Pollino, CA, Cuddy, SM & Gallant, S 2013 Ranger Rehabilitation and Closure Risk Assessment: Problem Formulation, CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, Canberra.
Supervising Scientist 2001, Annual Report 2000–2001, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra.
Supervising Scientist 2002, Supervising Scientist Monitoring Program: Instigating an Environmental Monitoring Program to Protect Aquatic Ecosystems and Humans from Possible Mining Impacts in the Alligator Rivers Region, Supervising Scientist Division, Environment Australia, viewed 2 February 2019,
Supervising Scientist 2018, Annual Technical Report 2015–16, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Turner K, Tayler, K & Tyrrell, JWR, 2015, Revised Ranger Mine Water Quality Objectives for Magela Creek and Gulungul Creek, Internal Report 638, Supervising Scientist, Darwin.